29 C.F.R. § 2200.35

Disclosure of corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. All answers, petitions for modification of abatement period, or other initial pleadings filed under these rules by a corporation shall be accompanied by a separate declaration listing all parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates of that corporation or stating that the corporation has no parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, whichever is applicable.

(b) Failure to disclose. The Commission or the Judge in its discretion may refuse to accept for filing an answer or other initial pleading that lacks the disclosure declaration required by this paragraph. A party that fails to file an adequate declaration may be held in default after being given an opportunity to show cause why it should not be held in default. All show cause orders issued by the Commission or the Judge shall be served in a manner prescribed in § 2200.7(o).

(c) Continuing duty to disclose. A party subject to the disclosure requirement of this paragraph has a continuing duty to notify the Commission or the Judge of any change in the information on the disclosure declaration until the Commission issues a final order disposing of the proceeding.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1982–1992 · leading case: Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y of Labor v. Arco Chem. Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 921 F.2d 484 (3rd Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elizabeth Dole, Sec'y of Labor v. Arco Chem. Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 921 F.2d 484 (3rd Cir. 1990). “At the outset, we note that the rule governing amendment in Commission proceedings is set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 2200.35 (f)(3) (1989). This regulation establishes the applicability of Fed.”

Spancrete Ne., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 905 F.2d 589 (2d Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 658 (a)), and in the Secretary’s complaint, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 2200.35 (b)(1). The Secretary might have charged in the alternative that Spancrete should have protected its employees against perimeter falls by providing them with “personal protective equipment” as…”

Kenneth E. Wilcox v. Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp. & Elmer Beale, 965 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1992). “The Supreme Court may disagree with the holding of National Solid Wastes Ass’n that once a federal rule is in place no state may “in a direct, clear and substantial way, [regulate] worker health and safety.”

Raymond J. Donovan (Successor to Ray Marshall) Sec'y of Labor v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 666 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1982). “29 C.F.R. §§ 2200.35 , 2200.101. 4 . Subpart M of Chapter XX of Title 29 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.